Manohar Lal Sharma vs Narendra Sawantsar

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:31013
1 MP-4242-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
nd
ON THE 2 OF NOVEMBER, 2026
MISC. PETITION No. 4242 of 2026
CNR No.: MPHC020267852026
MANOHAR LAL SHARMA
Versus
NARENDRA SAWANTSAR AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Ms. Pooja Goyal - Advocate for the petitioner.
ORDER
Heard on admission.
By filing this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:-

, 18
यह क ववान वे यवहार यायाधीश महोदय व र ख ड इ दौर
1- ,
विश ए ारा यािचकाकता याय पाने से वंिचत हुआ है उसके

वैधािनक अिधकारो से )ा* सुर +ा का घोर हािन है। उ / आदेश
हुई
1
िनर 0त कए जावे व यािचकाकता के )करण म 3 )ितयािचका कमांक

नरे 4 को करने क 6 अनुमित व यािचकाकता को उ / गवाह के
आहूत

)ितपर8+ण क 6 अनुमित )दान कए जाने के आदेश व िनद 9श )दान
होवे।
- , 18
ब यह क ववान वे यवहार यायाधीश महोदय व र ख ड
2- ,
इ दौर विश ए ारा यािचकाकता याय पाने से वंिचत है उसके
हुआ

वैधािनक अिधकारो से )ा* सुर +ा का घोर हािन हुई है। उ / आलो <य
1
आदेश िनर 0त कए जाने व यािचकाकता =मांक को यायालय मे

यायालय सा >य के ?प म 3 )0तुत होने व यािचकाकता को उ / सा +ी से

)ितपर8+ण क 6 अनुमित )दान कए जाने हेतु यो @य आदेश व िनद 9श

)दान होवे।

By way of this Misc. Petition, the petitioner is challenging the order
passed by learned 18th Civil Judge Senior Division Indore whereby the
application filed under Order 17 Rule 1 CPC filed by petitioner has been
rejected.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUNESHWAR
DATT
Signing time: 02-11-2026
18:58:01

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:31013
2 MP-4242-2026
The trial Court while rejecting the application under Order 17 Rule 1

CPC, has recorded as under:-

17
इसी 0तर पर वाद 8 क 6 ओर से एक आवेदन प B अंतग त आदेश िनयम
1 151
सहप ठत धारा सीपीसी इस आशय का )0तुत कया क )करण

म 3 माननीय यायालय ने वाद 8 के आवेदन प B पुन वचार पर आदेश

पा रत कए गए है Dजसक6 )थम बार जानकार 8 वाद 8 को शु =वार )ा*

हुई। उ / आदेश का नकल आवेदन )0तुत कया है Dजसके आदेश वाद 8

माननीय उ <च यायालयः ख डपीठ इ दौर के सम + संवैधािनक

यािचका )0तुत कर अंत रम 0थगन आवेदन प B पेश कर आदेश )ा*
, 1
कर यायालय के सम + )0तुत करना बाहता है Dजसम3 लगभग माह

का समय लगना अपे D+त है।

)ितवाद8 क 6 ओर से उ / आवेदन पर मौ Dखक आप H य/ क 6 है।

)करण का अवलोकन कया गया।
151
)करण के अवलोकन से दिश त है क वाद 8 ारा पूव म 3 कई बार धारा
16 (1) 14 151
व आदेश क िनयम सप ठत धारा सीपीसी के आवेदन

)0तुत कए जा चुके है Dजनके िनराकरण क 6 जानकार 8 वाद 8 अिधव /ा

को रह 8 है। वाद 8 अिधव /ा ने अपने आवेदन के साथ माननीय उ <च

यायालय के 0थगत संबंधी कोई आदेश )0तुत नह 8ं कए है व मा B

माननीय उ <च यायलय म 3 यािचका )0तुत कए जाने हेतु एक माह का
2017 9
समय चाहा है )करण वष का होकर लगभग वष पुराना है।

Dजसका माननीय उ <च यायालय के िनद 9शानुसार )करण का िनराकरण
2026
नाह जून तक कया जाना है वाद 8 को पूव म 3 कई पेिशय J पर अंितम

तक हेतु अवसर दए जा चुके है वाद 8 ारा )Kयेक पेशी पर अंत रम

आवेदन )0तुत कर )करण म 3 अंितम तक )0तुत नह 8ं कए जा रहे है।

अतः याद 8 को िनद 9िशत कया जाता है क आगामी दनांक पर आव Lयक

?पले अंितम तक )0तुत करे अ यथा )करण का िनराकरण उनके

अंितम तक )0तुत नह 8ं कए जाने पर गुणदोष J पर कया जावेगा।

तदानुसार वाद 8 क 6 ओर से )0तुत आवेदन िनराकृत कया जाता है।

It is also transpired from the record that on that day also the matter was
fixed for final arguments, at that point of time the application was filed.
Today also, upon query, it is stated by counsel for the petitioner that matter is
fixed for 16.11.2026 for final arguments.
At this stage, it would be relevant to reproduce Order 17 Rule 1 CPC
as under:-

ORDER XVII – ADJOURNMENTS
1. Court may grant time and adjourn hearing.
(1) The Court may, if sufficient cause is shown, at any stage of the
suit grant time to the parties or to any of them, and may from time
to time adjourn the hearing of the suit.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUNESHWAR
DATT
Signing time: 02-11-2026
18:58:01

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:31013
3 MP-4242-2026
(2) Costs of adjournment— In every such case the Court shall fix
a day for the further hearing of the suit and may make such order,
as it thinks fit with respect to the costs occasioned by the
adjournment:
Provided that-
(a) When the hearing of the suit has commenced, it shall be
continued from day-to-day until all the witnesses in attendance
have been examined, unless the Court finds that, for the
exceptional reasons to be recorded by it, the adjournment of the
hearing beyond the following day is necessary.
(b) no adjournment shall be granted at the request of a party,
except where the circumstances are beyond the control of that
party.
(c) the fact that the pleader of a party is engaged in another Court,
shall not be a ground for adjournment.
(d) where the illness of a pleader or his inability to conduct the
case for any reason, other than his being engaged in another Court,
is put forward as a ground for adjournment, the Court shall not
grant the adjournment unless it is satisfied that the party applying
for adjournment could not have engaged another pleader in time.
(e) where a witness is present in Court but a party or his pleader is
not present or the party or his pleader, though present in Court, is
not ready to examine or cross-examine the witness, the Court may,
if it thinks fit, record the statement of the witness and pass such
orders as it thinks fit dispensing with the examination-in- chief or
cross-examination of the witness, as the case may be, by the party
or his pleader not present or not ready as aforesaid.

Section 151 CPC provides as under:

151. Saving of inherent powers of Court .-
Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the
inherent power of the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for
the ends of justice, or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court.

Considering the stage of the suit filed in year 2017 is fixed for final
arguments. At that point of time petitioner has filed application under Order
17 Rule 1 CPC for adjournment which clearly indicates that petitioner is
delaying the proceedings which is pending since years at the verge of final
conclusion. As such from the material available on record, no reason
assigned for asking of such adjournment which is acceptable in eye of law,
otherwise also the impugned order passed by the trial court is in consonance
with law and also by using discretion in judicial manner.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUNESHWAR
DATT
Signing time: 02-11-2026
18:58:01

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:31013
4 MP-4242-2026
Therefore, it cannot be said that there is perversity or illegality

committed by the learned trial Court while passing the impugned order
warranting interference of this Court in exercise of the limited supervisory
jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
In the result petition being meritless, is hereby dismissed.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT)
JUDGE
BDJ

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUNESHWAR
DATT
Signing time: 02-11-2026
18:58:01